A Study of Mixed Phenotype Acute Leukemia Based on the 2008 World Health Organization Classification.
10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.6.525
- Author:
Joonhong PARK
1
;
Hyojin CHAE
;
Myungshin KIM
;
Jihyang LIM
;
Yonggoo KIM
;
Jaewook LEE
;
Nak Gyun CHUNG
;
Bin CHO
;
Hack Ki KIM
;
Seok LEE
;
Kyungja HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hankja@catholic.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Case Reports ; English Abstract
- Keywords:
Mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL);
2008 WHO classification;
Reclassification
- MeSH:
Acute Disease;
Adolescent;
Adult;
Aged;
Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology;
Child;
Chromosomes, Human;
Female;
Fusion Proteins, bcr-abl/metabolism;
Humans;
Infant;
Leukemia/classification/*diagnosis/mortality;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Phenotype;
Philadelphia Chromosome;
Survival Analysis;
World Health Organization
- From:The Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2010;30(6):525-532
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical significance of revised 2008 WHO classification needed to diagnose mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL). METHODS: A total of 22 MPAL patients, previously diagnosed by applying the scoring system of the European Group for Immunological Classification of Acute Leukemias (EGIL) were reclassified based on the 2008 WHO classification. RESULTS: In 2008 WHO classification, the number of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) required for assigning more than one lineage was markedly decreased, from 26 to 11, compared with that of EGIL. Seventeen of the 22 MPAL patients were reclassified as MPAL with following details: 6 MPAL with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1, 1 MPAL with t(v;11q23); MLL rearranged, 7 MPAL, B/Myeloid, not otherwise specified (NOS) and 3 MPAL, T/Myeloid, NOS. Five patients were excluded from MPAL in the revised classification: 4 cytoplasmic myeloperoxidase (cMPO)-negative and 1 CD19-negative. The failure of complete remission achievement and occurrence of relapse were associated with poor prognosis (P=0.0002 and P=0.009, respectively). But the presence of Philadelphia chromsome was not significantly related with patient outcome (P=0.082). One patient with cCD79a, CD20, CD38, cMPO and CD15, whose diagnosis was reclassified from MPAL to AML has survived during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Because of decreased number of mAbs needed, it is possible that acute leukemia panel is designed to include all mAbs required to diagnose MPAL according to 2008 WHO classification. When diagnosing MPAL, it is critical to figure out positivity in either cMPO or CD19, and AML expressing more than 2 lymphoid antigens are considered as MPAL.
